Talk:Delta Flyer (2377)
Incomplete As it appeared in several episodes there might be some more information on it. -- Q 09:07, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) :I would suggest actually merging this one in with the main Delta Flyer page, with seperate sections for each ship. After all, there isn't an individual page for each of the eight Weyouns, is there? --Malimar 02:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: I agree. If you look at the Constellation Class you will see various refit versions. However, that's a Class page. IFAIK, the Delta Flyer doesn't have a class or it is a class of one. Should there be a class page for it? Slamlander 13:12, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::No, theres not, but the weyouns were exact copies. There were quite a few differences between the 2 delta flyers. It's akin to just having an entry for the excelsior class, and keeping all the info about ships of that class on the same page. Individual ships need their own pages. Keeping both articles would be prudent. Mask 03:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Actually, there are more versions. Janeway gave the Delta Flyer a complete refit and upgrade before she took it back to destroy the Borg transwarp network. That version had deployable armor like the batmobile and could travel in time. The version that a future Harry Kim used to talk back to Seven of Nine was also a refit. I also note that there is no "Delta Flyer" class entry.Slamlander 21:08, 07Oct05 (WEST) ::::The first one your speaking of is actually SC-4, a shuttlecraft from the future with Ablative hull armor, that used a special Klingon-made time travel device known as a "chrono deflector", not standard equipment; Made by Korath. And the second one is (or should be) listed in the alternate future/history section of the Delta Flyer I. - AJHalliwell 19:25, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) I think should be good to insert in the 2 pages of the Delta Flyer the information regarding the BORG weapon technology and the Quantum slipstream drive achieved! this put the Delta Flyer to a very hi level upon many other ship...--Gaetano 10:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) A Delta Flyer Class? Should there be a class entry for the Delta Flyer? It is not really a shuttle as it isn't intended as a pure transport vehicle. It is more of a Special Missions vehicle, a step above a runabout but not quite a full-blown starship. Slamlander 13:13, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :It's a one-of-a-kind vehicle ("two-of-a-kind", actually ;)) for which no "class" exists, so I think that everything there is to say about the vehicles can be put on one of the existing pages. -- Cid Highwind 13:17, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::I should point out that we have some "starship class" articles for several types of starships which we only know of one or two existing, and the same types of articles for some types of shuttle "classes" (Class F shuttlecraft and Type 6 shuttlecraft for example), so this isn't entirely without precedent. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:49, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::But the Flyer was specially designed for Voyager. Being as the others are starships, we presume that several of them were made. We know there were/are only 2 Delta Flyers that exist, and have no reason to think otherwise. (Anonymous) ::Probably why an article about the Delta Flyer class shuttle would list that only two were made by Voyager. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:07, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :First, it shouldn't get a "class" article, because we don't know if the design was ever called Delta Flyer class. Second, it probably shouldn't even get a "type" article because, after all, this is not some starship class we simply don't know the name of, it is something that most probably doesn't belong to any class. Third, what information would be placed on this "class/type" article that couldn't stay on the articles about the only two existing ships? Do we have to split up that information? -- Cid Highwind 14:24, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::::An interesting thing to think about is: 'When Paris made this, did he think of calling it a class.' If Paris was a real being, I am sure he wouldn't have been focusing on 'Let's make it a class', more so 'Let's build this.' I would just surmise that the Delta Flyer is a one-of-a-kind creation. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 14:32, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Interesting points -- but I'm not suggesting a valid "class or type" article based on our understanding (or our supposition) of whether it has a class that a canon character names it -- i mean that every independant starship design built, even if it was done uniquely, is a separate design -- after all, i argued against the creation of the article because it was supposedly a one-off design -- that the designer didn't give a class name to -- but the article was created out of a desire to list every different type of vehicle in a "class or type" article -- i'm simply continuing that precedent. ::We know that the Delta Flyer doesn't have a proper "class" name we know of -- and its speculatory to try and imagine whether Paris or Janeway named the type or even if they wanted to or were required to. But what I'm saying is that, even unnamed classes are usually assigned some sort of disambiguative name here -- so they can be listed in a roster of different classes or types of shuttles without being associated or confused with a shuttle of a different design -- just as the Yeager-type vessel is unnamed, and possibly named but also possibly unnamed, but we created an article for it under that name to avoid confusing it with other Intrepid-class variants. And there's possibly only one Yeager-type ship known, which is one less than there are Delta Flyers -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk I am not sure that the Delta Flyer doesn't fall into an existing type designation. However, I am reasonably sure that is isn't a type shuttle. The lowest you could rate it is type runabout. Ergo, unless we definitely find a canonical source that says it is a shuttle, thet we at least list it under type runabout. On the other hand, argument can be made for creating a Special Missions Support vehicle type, for not other reason, than for us to be able to list it properly. At the moment it is not listed in any of the class or type databases. That, I think, is a problem. Slamlander 15:44, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Actually i think it would be inaccurate to call it a runabout -- as that designation seems reserved for different vessels -- but this is the same general area as the Federation mission scout (again, another small vehicle type that was unnamed in canon but named on Memory Alpha for clarity) -- perhaps just a Delta Flyer type article to list that there have been two ships like this -- just like the Class F shuttlecraft article lists that there have been four or five shuttles like that, the Yeager-type article lists the one ship like that. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:59, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) That's where I almost agree. The Delta Flyer is beyond being a runabout but it is laterally different from being a Federation mission scout. It's more like a long-range armed explorer scout. I would submit that the Federation mission scout description is too specific. For one thing, it is almost a multi-modal and multi-mission fighter/interceptor/attack craft. Whereas, the Delta Flyer is more of a heavily armed long-range scout/explorer. Hence, the need for at least a re-typeing. I don't think there would be any trouble getting consensus that the shuttle type designation does not at all apply to the Delta Flyer. Slamlander 16:51, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :re:Mike - perhaps we should change that other page instead. After all, we changed several of our policies and have a different understanding about "useful/-less" articles now. If there's a starship type without a proper name ("class") and if there are only a few ships of that type and we definitely have to have a name for that type, why don't we simply create a redirect to the already existing article? Wouldn't that be better than to split up information just to have another article that can be linked somewhere? -- Cid Highwind 17:15, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) That might actually work. But we are talking about two different things here and from a writer's perspective I might agree with you. However, from a user's perspective, you need to carry DF in both class and type listings. Yes, redirect is fine, but it needs to be listed somewhere. At it is, you have to go to the Voyager page or raw search to find it. Slamlander 17:24, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :There's nothing stopping you from listing the redirect page somewhere, if that is what you mean... -- Cid Highwind 18:36, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, there is. It's called "knowing how" I am not that familiar with this wiki stuff. Were this a normal website and I were root then it might be done already. Well, there is still the issue of consensus ... Cannons go "BOOM"! 02:44, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC) OK, it's two years later and the article sidebar now lists it as a "Class: Delta Flyer".. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC) : Well, 1 and a half years (plural?) later. Even though I was around in October 2005, I think I'll answer now. In my opinion, we should have "class" info on the main (I) page, perhaps under a "Class specifications" section or something. We can link to that section from the Delta Flyer II page if necessary. By the way, the great and powerful Mike Nobody added that class on October 20, 2005, right after the above conversation stalled.--Tim Thomason 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Stats Where does the following information come from? Please cite! --Alan del Beccio 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) :I'd like to know, too, as I would like to cite this page as a source... but I need to verify it's canon Phasers on Delta Flyer II? I was looking over screencaps from "Homestead" on Trekcore just now and I see that the Delta Flyer II used what clearly appears to be a phaser beam to destroy a ship that's attacking Neelix's ship. The Delta Flyer II article only lists "pulse phased weapons" as the ship's weaponry. It seems that there are two possibilities here. Either "pulse phased weapons" is a general term for a type of weapons that includes phasers; or they were a separate type of weapon, which the Flyer II had on board in addition to phasers. Since there's no particular conclusive proof to be found for either interpretation, how do we denote this on the article page? Do we simply leave it as "pulse phased weapons", since we have no proof that the phasers the ship fired in "Homestead" aren't classified as such? Or, do we list phasers as well? -Mdettweiler 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Edit: Another thing I just thought of. The Flyer II is stated to be a reconstruction of the original Flyer. The original Flyer's weaponry is listed as "8 Phaser arrays; photonic missiles; photon torpedoes". It would seem logical that a reconstruction of that vessel would have armaments at least comparable to the original. Should the 8 phaser arrays, photonic missiles, and photon torpedoes be listed on the Flyer II's page as well? -Mdettweiler 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :Since no objections have been raised to this, I've added phasers to the list on the article sidebar. Having seen at least a few other episodes within the last few days that showed the Flyer II clearly firing phasers, and confirmed that there are numerous other such appearances, I think it's safe to say that there are phasers on the ship. The only question that remains is whether "pulse phased weapons" should be removed now that "phasers" has been added; it would seem logical that phasers would be classified as pulse phased weapons, but without any canon support for this, as clunky as it seems I'd suggest to leave both on. :Another matter entirely is that of torpedoes on the Flyer II. In " ", they quite clearly fire photon torpedoes at a Borg ship, even though it's not explicitly stated in dialog. By the same logic as for the phasers, I've added photon torpedoes to the page as well. -Mdettweiler 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Flight controls I'm not sure if this holds true to all episodes, but in , when Paris starts up the flyer, it has the same controls as the old one. Jacce | Talk | 16:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :It probably is since the used the same set anyway. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:02, February 13, 2018 (UTC) Name I haven't seen "II" on any screenshots so where does it come from? Scripts? Delta Flyer (2377) seems far more appropriate; it'd mean renaming the former Delta Flyer (2375) but so what--Archer4real (talk) 14:15, November 24, 2019 (UTC) Was it scripted as "II", then? Screenshots say otherwisehttp://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/7x08/nightingale035.jpg. Incidentally wouldn't mind finding out where VOY scripts could be downloaded; every so often come across refs to "the script says…" and bugs me to death I don’t have that access--Archer4real (talk) 11:32, December 4, 2019 (UTC). :I suspect that the "II" was made up by User:Jasonr when he created the article in 2004. Back then, Memory Alpha didn't have many rules about how to name articles. User:Defiant is the best person to ask about scripts, since he has an enormous script collection and is usually happy to help. A Google Books search for "Delta Flyer II" only turns up matches in the novel Protectors and some unlicensed quiz books, which were all published years after this article was created. --NetSpiker (talk) 11:04, December 5, 2019 (UTC) :: We need might want to rename it. There is nothing in the script ("Drive" onward), except a line about the "new Delta Flyer". And yes, we should also rename the original Delta Flyer article too (to follow suit with USS Defiant (2370) and USS Defiant (2375)). --Alan (talk) 12:36, December 6, 2019 (UTC) :::Is the reference to the Star Trek Encyclopedia in the background section incorrect, then? If so, it should be removed, or if the Encyclopedia itself is incorrect, the reference should be modified to reflect that. -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:42, December 6, 2019 (UTC) :: I guess it would help if they would have specified which script... which turns out in it does say in the scene establishing script notes "The Delta Flyer II" on 6 occasions, but dialogue and under "sets" it doesn't mention II. Also, script calls it simply "Delta Flyer". --Alan (talk) 15:52, December 6, 2019 (UTC) ::::I'm fine with using the current name, since we now know where it comes from, though I'm not opposed to renaming these either. - 16:46, December 6, 2019 (UTC) In the script for Quinn is referred to as Q2; this could potentially have caused confusion apropos Q2 and , methods of differentiating notwithstanding (too early for these long words). For this reason, I’d favour renaming “DF (2377)”; also there are any number of precedents other than the Defiant as quoted for so doing.--Archer4real (talk) 10:44, December 7, 2019 (UTC) :::::Yeah I too think that going with a standard disambiguation is preferable. It's a bit too clever to have a custom disambiguation just because a writer trying to make something clear happened to interact with our practices in a way that makes that possible. The policy that technically allows "Delta Flyer II" was meant to make this wiki better, but having one page unexpectedly disambiguated different from analogous articles doesn't do that. The current name is compliant and therefore ok, but "Delta Flyer (2377)" would be better. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:16, December 7, 2019 (UTC)